Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Headbomb (talk | contribs) at 23:26, 31 July 2019 (Undid revision 908742546 by LilZel0 (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
    Category, List, Sorting, Feed    		ShowcaseParticipants
    Apply, By subject    		Reviewing instructions
    		Help deskBacklog
    drives
    Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!
    AfC submissions
    Random submission
    2+ months
    1,256 pending submissions
    Purge to update
    Shortcut


    WikiProject iconArticles for creation Project‑class
    WikiProject iconThis page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)AfC project pagesWikiProject icon
    ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

    Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

    AFCH script needs update

    I noticed that the AFCH script is not detecting existing WikiProject banners on draft talk pages. Reviewers accepting the draft have the option to add WikiProject tags, and if they choose to add tags that are already present, the tags are duplicated. Eg. [1], [2]

    Per the section above, adding project tags to draft talk pages is desirable in interest of draft sorting, so this bug needs to be fixed. SD0001 (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Will look into it. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Move to Draft space as an alternative to deletion

    I've seen this a couple times now but most recently with Draft:Symbolic language (literature) bu Rosguill. Someone WP:PRODs an aticle. It gets WP:DEPRODDED. Normally the next step is WP:AFD but instead the article is moved to Draft space. This does not seem like appropriate workflow. Should I be reverting these moves? ~Kvng (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ETA: Here's the other example I've seen: Draft:Waripora Bangil by Boleyn ~Kvng (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Kvng, normally I'd agree with you as far as procedure, but in the case of Draft:Symbolic language (literature), I honestly think the article would be kept at AfD, but as written it was nowhere near acceptable for mainspace (plus the initial editor showed good faith engagement and seemed quite likely to come back to improve the article). signed, Rosguill talk 16:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boleyn:@Rosguill: can you elaborate on what you mean by not being acceptable for mainspace? Your move comment says, "Needs more than just a dictionary definition, incubate in draftspace." WP:DICDEF is a problem if there is no possibility of expansion. I assume you believe there is a possibility of expansion because you acknowledge it would not be deleted and you presumably sent it to Draft to be expanded.
    I don't see anything on the draft's talk page. What made you think the author would participate here at at AfC? And specifically what lead you to believe AfC is the best place for this to occur? ~Kvng (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kvng, I'm assuming you meant to ping me here...this article was created alongside a half dozen other "Symbolic language (X)" articles, all of them suffering from the same problems, and all of which were nominated for PROD by the same editor (IIRC). They did a good job improving Symbolic language (engineering) after I engaged them on their talk page, and also added several sources to Symbolic language (art), although I haven't double checked to make sure that article is OR-free. For (literature), however, I was unable to find anything in a google scholar search, although I suspect that introductory english texts for high schoolers or university intro-classes will have information. signed, Rosguill talk 19:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the background information. ~Kvng (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Kvng, if you look at WP:NPPDRAFT, that'll give you a clear idea of what we're following. Of course, the creator needs to be informed and can work on it in draftspace and move it back at the click of a button. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boleyn: It looks like the button click you're talking about is the AfC submit button. That sends the draft into a 2+ month wait followed by the gauntlet of AfC review. WP:NPPDRAFT indicates that articles, "far from sufficiently developed or sourced for publication" are eligible to be moved. This is pretty vague. Rosguill was concerned about poor sourcing which is generally not a valid WP:DEL-REASON but apparently is enough to get an article taken out back and then likely quietly disposed of under G13 6 months later. Like, I said at the beginning, this does not seem like appropriate workflow. My feeling is that if the article under development can't be killed off by CSD or PROD I would conclude it has at least a 50% chance of surviving AfD and so should remain in mainspace. ~Kvng (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kvng, AFC is one option to get it back to mainspace, another is to move it themselves if they have the right or editors quite regularly directly ask the person who draftified it to restore it. They also can, and often do, just copy and paste it to mainspace, which isn't necessarily a problem if the quality's OK, and it'll still go through NPP, but would be immediately in the mainspace. The creator is always notified and so has six months to work on it, plus others do monitor drafts. They are often not works in progress, unfortunately, but finished with. If you want a discussion about this, the NPP page would probably be best, as this isn't directly to do with AFC, and you might get a wider pool of involved editors. I do see your point, there are definite good arguments both ways, but we do have to have some standards for admission. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    No is the correct and short answer to should I revert these Moving articles to draft space that are needing space to develop and that includes bio articles that may have been sitting for a decade or more with no references is now established process for more than a year. It has an ad-hoc approach but works well. Draft is good place for them to sit and develop while being out the limelight. scope_creepTalk 09:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Scope creep: Do you have any information or details to back your assertion that moving to Draft works well? ~Kvng (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have started a discussion about moves to Draft at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#WP:NPPDRAFT. ~Kvng (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And I would suggest that WT:NPP/R would gain more eyeballs. But since I'm here I would register my opposition to the idea of getting rid of draftify as an option for new page patrol. I think its scope and use as currently defined in policy is appropriate. I"m not watching here so please ping me if you want me to see it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion has been restarted at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#WP:NPPDRAFT_vs._AfC_acceptance_criteria ~Kvng (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kvng, your opening statement is not quite accurate. We do not have to provide you with details to back your assertion that moving to Draft does not work well. The onus is on you to provide very substantial and well documented evidence that it does not. Otherwise this discussion is moot and merely a solution looking for a problem.
    Draft is not, and never was intended as, an alternative to deletion, nor conversely, was it intended through its G13 to be a backdoor route to deletion. The deletion policy clearly outlines the possible alternatives, in the subtle manner that reminds us that Wikipedia is generally more inclusionist than deletionist. A PROD is a simple but effective route to deletion where the lack of content and/or inclusion criteria does not need a grand debate at AfD, but allows the creator just 7 days to meet requiremenbts. DePRODing and moving to Draft is not an option for authorised New Page Reviewers,but dePRODing, blanking, and redirecting is, provided the article is not a totally disallowed or toxic content.
    Articles are rarely sent to AfD from NPP, because reviewers are (suppposedly) skilled enough to know if an article can be deleted, or kept, while articles that are not fit for mainspace but are otherwise legitimately encyclopedic and show promise are sent by New Page Reviewers to Draft. That's the whole idea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
    I would be interested in observing the fate of articles in Draft space. I do have some information that is somewhere between anecdotal and scientific survey.
    • I am an active WP:AFC reviewer so I do have a lot of Draft space articles on my watchlist due to having commented or declined them in the past. As you might expect it is common for authors to abandon them. It is also extremely uncommon for other authors/editors to pick them up and improve them.
    • I am an active members of WP:DEPROD and WP:DEORPHAN and so have a lot of marginal mainspace articles on my watchlist too. Most of these survive and many of them are eventually improved, at least marginally.
    Does anyone have any suggestions or tools for tracking the fate of Draft space articles, especially those that were moved there by someone other than the author? ~Kvng (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like discussion is finished over at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#WP:NPPDRAFT_vs._AfC_acceptance_criteria. There is no consensus to change WP:NPPDRAFT. NPP reviewers assure me that these involuntary moves to Draft don't happen often but they will continue to happen. ~Kvng (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    notability vs quality

    Sometimes I see the argument here where people note that pages that are declined at AFC would pass at AFD because the subject is notable. Isn't this a huge problem? If a page wouldn't get deleted at AFD, then doesn't it make logical sense that it should be passed at AFC? Hasn't AFC had a scope creep here, where reviewers are not just assessing if a subject belongs in wikipedia, but are assessing whether the editor has sufficiently made their page look nice too?

    If a page that had 2 sources came to AFD, but was of a subject that everyone agreed was notable, then it wouldn't get deleted. But the same could happen here and the page would get declined (regardless of whether the subject was notable or not) and then if the editor gets disheartened, end up on the road to g13 deletion.

    So isn't the current AFC process just ensuring that loads of notable subjects for the wiki are deleted? Gumlau (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Gumlau, I think you may possibly be misunderstanding the purpose of AfC. Unlike WP:NPP which is operated by accredited reviewers whose main job is to summarily decide whether an article should be kept or (with final review by an administraitr) deleted, at AfC articles are not sent to AfD, but are either kept, in which case they come under review at NPR, or declined and returned to the author with or without tips for improvement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, sorry, If I was unclear, know that articles from AFC don't go to AFD. My main point seems to be that AFC is fundamentally a poor thing. It can't be fixed. The whole point of a wiki is colloborative effort. AFC, by its very structural design, creates a system (or gauntlet) where pages are usually met with one reviewer, who ends up making the call whether the page is valid or not.
    I know that people are going to get defensive about this, because they've done a lot of good work. They have, there are loads of great AFC reviewers who offer great advice. This isn't about them, it's about a system that means even if there is 1% of reviewers who reject new pages on spurious grounds unrelated to notability, they are doing untold damage not just to the Wiki, but to the human knowledge project, as many notable pages are being rejected and then eventually getting flushed down to g13 in an opaque process. How many article drafts are going through this and how many eyes get to see them before this happens?
    I also feel there's a certain amount of trickery involved with the draft page. Users who create a draft are given a template with a big button saying "submit your draft for review". They may not realise that they can simply move their draft directly to mainspace. I'm a teacher who has taught wikipedia editing course and I would never tell my students to submit anything to AFC, because it goes against the entire priciple of what a wiki should be and of course it takes far too long.
    I can see only two solutions here: 1) open up AFC reviewing so anyone can view and comment on draft submissions, 2) close down AFC Gumlau (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Gumlau, that is not quite accurate. Only users whose accounts are confirmed can create articles in mainspace. Their articles then go directly to the New Page Review feed where the reviewers mainly exercise a binary decision: Keep, or tag for deletion. Only occasionally do they move articles to draft. The AfC process was created many years ago when it was decided not to allow creation of new pages by IP users . AfC may not be perfect, but generally it serves its purpose, and somewhat better since we introduced a method of preventing totally inexperienced users from reviewing the drafts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't serve the purpose of the encyclopedia, because it puts executive power in the hands of single users who can dismiss new articles unilaterally. This is not what a wiki is about. The New page review is much better, because in most cases, a questionable page will at least face a group decision in daylight about it's suitability for inclusion. This allows for arguments to be heard and people may even change their minds(!) about notability, etc.
    Most worryingly is the accusations that notable subjects at AFC are being rejected because of style problems or lack of citations. This goes against the long standing Wikipedia institution of the stub article. Would a stub article pass at AFC?
    Perhaps we could include a button on the draft template that alongside the "submit your draft" for review, gives the option for drafters (who are confirmed users) to move their draft directly into mainspace when it's ready. Currently when a user creates a draft, an infobox appears on the draft, but it only tells the user to submit to AFC, it doesn't inform them that they can move their draft directly to mainspace. This is an information gap that needs resolving.Gumlau (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Gumlau, at New Page Review, the decision to keep or delete an article is made by a single reviewer. There is a fail-safe in that the actual deletion is made by an admin. Incorrect tagging for deletion can happen, but it is rare. A stub will pass at AfD if sufficient sources are provided to establish notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, so maybe I'm mistaken here. My impression was that at NPR, reviewers could tag a page for deletion, and unless it was a speedy, this would mean it would go through a community discussion (where people oppose or support the deletion). Gumlau (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gumlau: - AfC will naturally decline/reject more than NPP would (though NPP sometimes draftifies non-sourced content). This is heavily because AfC drafts have to already show their notability, while AfD has to look for it. This is a required trade-off to let us fulfill our requirements without being (even more!) overwhelmed. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good (or adequate, at least). Dissolving/slowing AfC would lead to various editors not being able to submit at all, and just moving the rejected articles to elsewhere in Wikipedia to handle. Conservative reviewers is indeed an issue. I'd say the judgement lies more in what is viewed as an "ok" source (as vs a good one). It's a case of "do I feel I could defend this article at AfD". Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gumlau has a point, and the valid point component goes to WP:DUD. He also alludes to the view that AfC reviewers are sometimes too conservative in approving acceptable new topics, usually being too harsh on writing quality or referencing technical aspects.
    The biggest benefit of AFC and draftspace is wayling inept spammers. An important benefit of AfC is providing a process for WP:COI editors. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I naturally can't dispute that SmokeyJoe. AfC reviewers are not subject to the same scrutiny as New Page Patrollers, and it's common knowledge that they do not all apply the same criteria. Unlike NPP, they have no proper tutorial or guidelines. A2soup, consider promoting WP:DUD from essay to advice page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    AFC acceptance criteria is well documented and really the only area open to interpretation is the WP:NPOV requirement. I do frequently see reviewers rejecting drafts for reasons not in the criteria. I assume they are emboldened to do this because AFCH includes some canned options to do so; also nobody ever got in trouble with other editors for erroring towards decline in their reviews; there's the two-party inclusionist/deletionist predisposition of editors; and it does take a bit of WP:BOLDness and significant experience to accept a low-quality draft on a notable subject from a WP:SPA contributor and then defend that action at AFD. So that's where we are and we're all WP:VOLUNTEERS so need to give each other room to do our thing. Until recently, authors could always resubmit their drafts for a second opinion on a bad decline. With the introduction of the Reject option for reviewers this check is perhaps weaker but I have been reassured that the intent is not to use Reject for a first review. I hope this is still the practice. ~Kvng (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the decline result should link to the “well documented“(?) AfC acceptance criteria. This will put the author in a much better position should they need are argue against a bad decline. Bad declines, bad accepts, as well as bad submissions, should all be accepted as standard occurrences. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an inherent tolerance bias because bad accepts are seen by many (at NPP and in mainspace) and bad declines are often seen by just the reviewer and the author. It would be nice if all mistakes were equally tolerated but, structurally, this is not the case.
    I don't think linking to reviewing instructions will be helpful to authors. What we probably need is a separate write up on "What to do if you don't agree with this decline." I can volunteer to put that together. ~Kvng (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that reviewing instructions does not meet my idea of "well documented". I think a much simplified and concise "AfC acceptance criteria" could be a good idea.
    what do you know :) ! Someone just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Acceptance criteria. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "What to do if you don't agree with this decline" is independently a good idea. I see you have started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Decline_message_improvements below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Decline message improvements

    Based on the above and other discussion of authors not understanding AfC acceptance criteria, not taking declines well and the known possibility of bad declines, I have reviewed our messaging and have some improvements to propose. In addition to the custom or canned description of the reason for the decline, the decline template offers these bullets:

    • If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
    • If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted.
    • If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors.
    • Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted.

    This message also appears at the bottom next to the Resubmit button:

    • Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be declined again.


    I propose the following revisions

    • Please understand our acceptance criteria and the specific the reason your submission was declined before editing your draft to resolve the issues.
    • After reviewing your decline and our acceptance criteria, if you believe your draft should not have been declined, you may resubmit for another review.
    • If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors.
    • Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted.

    The message appears at the bottom next to the Resubmit button:

    • Please note that if this draft has not been improved to meet our acceptance criteria, it will be declined again and potentially deleted.

    Note that I have linked three times to a new informational page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Acceptance_criteria. Feel free to make or suggest any improvements. ~Kvng (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Two things immediately jump out - we should not use "rejected" now that "rejected" has its own meaning. Second, we absolutely should not tell them to simply resubmit without making changes, because regardless of whether it was a bad review they'll just resubmit and hope to game the system. No real opinions on the rest. Primefac (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have replaced "reject" with "decline" throughout.
    How should authors handle what they think is a bad review? It is a common question. ~Kvng (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, for a bad decision, like a bad XfD or RM close, the usual Wikipedia-cultural norm is to politely ask the closer. The text at WP:RENOM has been complimented for good tone (read "closer" as synonymous with "AfC reviewer"):

    Ask the closer about your concern. Be polite, and do not assume that they know exactly what you have been thinking. When asked directly, they may say something that you hadn’t considered, or at least give a more detailed explanation that may prove useful. If, after discussing it with them, you think the closer was wrong, consider ...

    We don't have a forum for disputed AfC reviews, except for this talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. I suggest pointing authors seeking to make a formal complaint to here, until there are lots of them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: - the AfC HelpDesk gets lots of these, and it's as good a place as any. I've probably agreed and accepted 5 of them and have queried the original closer on a few other close ones. In terms of controversial reviews, it generally seems like the talk page is used for ones that the reviewer themselves are unsure about. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are right. Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk is serving this function. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So maybe we can combine the 2nd and 3rd bullets to read: ~Kvng (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reviewing the decline notice on your draft and our acceptance criteria, if you believe your draft should not have been declined or need extra help, please contact your reviewer on their talk page, ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors.
    Suggest "your decline" -> "your declined draft" -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline notice is what should be reviewed. I have added some words above to clarify. ~Kvng (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any more discussion necessary here or shall I implement these changes? ~Kvng (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Chart: Pending AfC submissions

    Adding and making a sticky with a do-not-archive template:

    --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Excellent!! --CNMall41 (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @K.e.coffman: - what is the definition of v.old? Nosebagbear (talk)
    Very old is pending for 9+ weeks. What is labelled as 8+ weeks is really just 8 weeks (those pending for at least 8 weeks, but less than 9 weeks). --Worldbruce (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "8 weeks+" plot should be removed. ~Kvng (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Idea: field

    Similar to WP:DELSORT or tagging with WikiProject banners, I feel a lot of the backlog could get more efficiently addressed if there was a |field= or |WikiProject(s)= that could be used to 'sort/categorize' submissions in {{AFC submission}}. These could then be leveraged to create project-specific watchlists. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've also made a feature request to support AFC at WP:AALERTS/FR. Please comment there. If this gets implemented, people could just tag drafts with WikiProject banners, and that would 'request' a reviewer, cutting down on the backlogs, and significantly improving review time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See #Technical solutions for eliminating backlog for something similar. You could use draft-sort-burst to add project tags to draft talk pages, and then see them via toollabs:apersonbot/pending-subs, though the latter isn't fully developed and the former doesn't integrate nicely with AFCH helper (see #AFCH script needs update).
    For article alerts to work, the draft has to be identifiable with a WikiProject first, right? The major obstacle is forming the WikiProject associations. SD0001 (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, right now for them to work at WP:AALERTS, it would have to be coded into the bot first. But after that's done, then yes, this would mostly be based on WikiProject tagging. There are other ways to pick up things, but this would be the most reliable one. So if someone comes accross an article, about say something like an academic journal and they don't feel qualified to review it (or know there are better people to review it than them), they could tag it with {{WikiProject Journals}} and that would let WP Journals know there's a journal-related draft ready for review. I don't stroll drafts for journal articles, but whenever someone posts a notice at WT:JOURNALS it's a very quick thing for me (and others) to review.
    Likewise if there was a delsort-like listings of new drafts in need of review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is already some support for project watchlists to see new drafts coming in along with new articles. User:InceptionBot uses search rules to associate articles with projects and updates lists of new articles (including drafts) for projects which have "New Article" displays on their main page. An example is User:AlexNewArtBot/AstroSearchResult. The list of such pages is at User:AlexNewArtBot. I don't know how much project editors follow up on this, or if they know how to review. Some education fo project editors may be needed. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding pending drafts to article alerts is a good idea, but there should be some outreach to WikiProjects explaining the new section and what they can do with the information. Is that something you could undertake, SD0001? There's a recruiting template, {{WPAFCInvite}}, and a welcome template {{AfC welcome}}, but they're dated, and have created friction in the past. Common complaints have been (1) TLDR - that getting involved at AfC to review some modest number of drafts related to their project is too complicated and takes too long - they've lost interest before they've finished wandering the link forest, and (2) that the sign up process is convoluted, slow, and insulting when we're asking them to help us. Better communication could improve potential reviewers' understanding and perceptions of the process.
    The outreach might vary depending on the type of WikiProject, how many drafts have been tagged with that project, and how aggressively we want to recruit reviewers from that project. I suggest recruiting aggressively from a small number of not-too-busy projects at first (Albums, Chemistry, and Spain, for example). AfC wants qualified new reviewers, but wouldn't like to be inundated with them all at once. Then use feedback from the first group to refine outreach to the next group of WikiProjects.
    The percentage of pending drafts tagged with a WikiProject (or sorted by other identifying characteristics, like infoboxes) has been pushed from 15% to 40% over the past month. For now I'm willing to keep increasing that if having sorted drafts draws good new reviewers to the project. In the longer term, sorting would need to be delegated to WikiProjects using AlexNewArtBot to monitor new drafts, or perhaps automated by making ORES smarter. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Infoboxes work well in a lot of cases. For example, see this worklist I made for WP:JOURNALS, based on draft pages that transcluded Template:Infobox journal. Worklists like that can be build for certain topics. It probably will be useless for most biographies and companies, but it will let the good stuff on actual topics get reviewed more quickly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll also note that drafts with such infobox could get picked up by WP:AALERTS if their subscription has an infobox listed. For example {{WikiProject Magazines}} is matched with {{Infobox magazine}}. At the moment, only one infobox can be specified, so it isn't really possible to just match loosely-related infoboxes. The safest way will always remain banner tagging, because that will always get picked up, and if you see the banner, you know it will be picked up. Every other method will be less reliable, not from a technical perspective, but rather from a lack of guarantee that WikiProject Dog is subscribed via Infobox Dog. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:NewPages for drafts

    Hey, it probably already exists, but I think it would be a good idea for people to patrol new drafts, a la NPP, to reduce work for AfC/G13, and nip spam/vandalism in the bud. Does there exist a place to check? PrussianOwl (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @PrussianOwl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPages?namespace=118wpFormIdentifier=newpagesform --DannyS712 (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PrussianOwl and DannyS712:, Significant development was carried out earlier this year by WMF devs in very close collaboration with a team of en.Wiki AfC and NPP users to greatly improve both processes.
    All drafts are displayed in the dynamic list at Special:NewPagesFeed. Select 'Articles for Creation' and then from 'Set filters' choose from the multiple options which kind of drafts you would like to review. All AfC reviewers are encouraged to use this feed. There is a link to it in 'Tools' in the sidebar menu. See 'New Pages Feed'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You can also filter (sorta) by subject areas and other useful categories at toollabs:apersonbot/pending-subs. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but I don't mean submitted drafts. I mean newly created drafts, is there anything to show those? PrussianOwl (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrussianOwl: CopyPatrol does what you describe. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I tried it and couldn't get it to do that. PrussianOwl (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrussianOwl: Open the tool. Select "Drafts only" at the top. Click the "Submit" button without providing any search string. As of this instant, you should get 3 results, one of which is Draft:Arrow Award, a draft that has never been submitted for review. If you select "All cases" instead of the default "Open cases", you should get even more results, including ones that not only have never been submitted, but that have no draft templates, such as Draft:Jwalshik Wilford and Draft:Golden Reel Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing - Sound Effects, Foley, Dialogue and ADR for Animated Feature Film. Was that what you were looking for? --Worldbruce (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I put that in all caps because it is a serious issue. Over the last few days I have been looking into AfC more intensively than usual with a view to making the work more streamlined for reviewers.
    However, I have come across numerous drafts that have been accepted and moved to mainspace that contain over 50% COPYVIO. I'm not going to provide links or diffs to name and shame the reviewers, but this must be addressed, and in way that does not intimidate the creators by having to return their articles to draft space. Drafts are created because their content needs special attention or because the provenance of the content is dubious. There is a 'Copyvio check' link in the sidebar of every page. Please use it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewers will only have a 'Copyvio check' link in their sidebar if they have added importScript('User:The Earwig/copyvios.js'); to their common.js; or taken similar measures. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A CV check is the first thing any reviewer should be doing, before even reading the opening sentence. Click the copyvio check link, let it run in the background, and then read through the draft. Yes, people will miss things, but that excuse only works for so long. Please take the time to check. Primefac (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's the first thing they should do, then the instructions should make it clear that's the first thing they should do. And it should be added to the tools. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the first thing in the reviewing flowchart, but you do make a good point so I've rearranged it to be the first thing in the quick fail section. Primefac (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If these had been made in mainspace, would the copyvio bots have detected them? If so, perhaps those bots could be asked to run on submitted drafts. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have copyvio bots? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably worth noting in the instructions that it can run while flicking through the other quick-fail criteria - I suspect people who know better don't do it because of the minor, but repetitive, agro, when actually it doesn't cause any Nosebagbear (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you use Special:NewPagesFeed to select drafts to review, they are pre-flagged in the list if there is a suspected CV issue. ~Kvng (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, apparently not the ones that I remember, Headbomb. User:EarwigBot and User:CorenSearchBot used to do this and template drafts and articles with suspected copyvios, but neither does that anymore. There are a slew of other copyvio bots I'm not familiar with, but I don't think any of them template the page itself, just report it somewhere. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Someguy1221: I suggest you make a WP:BOTREQ for people to take over these bots if the original maintainers aren't around. Or that someone develops similar bots if the code isn't available. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    AFC script: Invite people to Wikiprojects upon successful submissions

    For example, when I reviewed 100 Word Story, I marked it as belonging to {{WikiProject Literature}}. Then, the script notified it's submitter, Crier of Ink, with the standard notice... which fails to mention that the user may be interested in joining WikiProject Literature! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Going to @Enterprisey: on this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Enterprisey: Any comment? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's a really good idea! While I'm fixing up other stuff, I'll look into adding a checkbox or something. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    A checkbox that should probably be enabled by default :p. Could be a simple line, such as

    • Consider joining one or more WikiProjects, which are collaborations of editors which aim to improve specific topic area within Wikipedia. For example, you may be interested in joining $1, $2, ... $N.
    • Consider joining one or more WikiProjects, which are collaborations of editors which aim to improve specific topic area within Wikipedia. For example, you may be interested in joining WikiProject Academic Journals and/or WikiProject Literature.

    Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewer not responding to concerns

    Thankfully this is a case of a little miscommunication and some out-of-date browsers. Feel free to continue the bugfix discussion in a subsection if necessary. Primefac (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Multiple editors have expressed concern on Dan's talk page (permalink to thread) about excessive numbers of rejections (not declines) on drafts that could be notable; from what I have seen of the various rejections most fail WP:V (and definitely should be declined) but make claims that would seem (if verified) to meet WP:GNG or at the very least WP:CCSI. Are the editors that posted on his talk justified in their concerns? If so, should Dan be admonished, put on "one more chance" status, or removed from AFC? The last option would require them to re-apply through WP:AFC/P should they wish to continue reviewing. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've already provided my concerns, so I'll answer the 2nd part as to action. Notwithstanding a great explanation for actions, I'm inclined to say that if Dan engages then he should revert to a 2 month parole status (somewhere between an admonishment and a "1 chance"), and we can make an ongoing/concluding judgement. If he continues not to engage, then I don't see what choice we have but to remove him. Much like Admins, reviewers must be willing the engage and explain their reasoning for their actions. - given browser concerns Nosebagbear (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow-up, I wanted to specifically stress Primefac's comment that the yes/no decision part has been made (afaict) flawlessly. It's purely the decline/reject aspect. Nosebagbear (talk)
    The above (initial) comment should be viewed as in abeyance until the decline to reject aspect has been considered in more detail Nosebagbear (talk)
    • I am one of those that voiced my concerns. While the lack of engagement with his peers is worrying, Dan's most recent AfC activities have been accepts or declines, rather than rejects, so hopefully our feedback on his talk page has been heeded. I suggest we monitor for the timebeing. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I raised this with Dan arndt a couple weeks ago. He replied on my talk page, and that's where the discussion continued. He concluded that the AFCH script was turning his declines into rejects (except those he was reviewing using mobile devices). Wolfson5 and Calliopejen1 have mentioned the AFCH script behaving that way as well. Enterprisey looked at it when it was first reported, but I'm not aware of any resolution. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's bizarre but would obviously render the concerns thus far rather moot (though communicating to a mass of editors on your talk page is somewhat key)...has anyone else come across this. I look at declines when I make them, but I'll have a look through a mix of my prior declines to see if it's happened to me. If a few others could do the same that's not unreasonable. Pinging @Enterprisey: as he might be helpful to the discussion. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nosebagbear:, @Primefac:, @Curb Safe Charmer: It seems that this has snowballed into a potential avalanche. Firstly I have been busy in real life for the last week, which has meant that I haven't been checking WP, which is why I haven't been responding - I can understand people immediately jumping to the conclusion that I have avoided responding to them however this isn't the case. As indicated by Worldbruce I have already indicated that there appears to be a problem with the AFCH script which appears to automatically turn my declines into rejects, except when I'm using my tablet. I'm not certain what the cause is but I certainly haven't being doing it deliberately as some editors appear to be implying. As also previously indicated I have generally being dealing with those AfC requests, where it is obvious that they are unlikely to ever satisfy the requirements for notability - such as copyright infringements, paraphrasing, blatant advertising, complete lack of sources/references and even then I have always put a description of why I have declined them rather than relying solely on the AFCH script. In addition I don't always decline AfC requests - occasionally where I see that article satisfies or potentially could satisfy notability requirements I go in and edit the article to bring it up to scratch and then approve it. I have also tried to be diligent where a user contact me directly I respond directly to them - with the last week being the exception. I hope that the above clarifies your concerns. If you have any further queries let me know. Dan arndt (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dan arndt: - I believe the judgement on lack of response is because of your activity on days after the concerns were raised. As with regard to the AFCH script, hopefully Enterprisey can take a look at it when he gets a spare bit of time. I've not had the chance to check back over mine yet, should do that tonight. Query - do they immediately appear as rejections, rather than declines? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to ping @Calliopejen1 and Wolfson5: as they both reported instances (though less "standard" than in Dan Arndt's case) of the same issue. Wolfson has been inactive for a fair while, but CalliopeJen - if you've reviewed since you noted the issue in June, has it reoccurred? If this is affecting multiple users then this is a more major issue. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it happens every time (as far as I know) that I do/did a review from IE on my work computer. I stopped doing reviews there to avoid the issue. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dan arndt: - could you try a review in a different browser (but still on your computer) to see if the issue persists? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, will give it a shot Nosebagbear but I’m just about to crash for the night - will do it in the morning. Dan arndt (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough! Nosebagbear (talk)
    Sorry had a bit of work to catch up on first. Well Nosebagbear I just tried using Google Chrome for User:23csmooth/sandbox and the AFCH script worked perfectly. However when I tried it just using Google - User:Andrewjmeade/sandbox the AFCH script states the article was rejected (even though I hit Decline not Reject). Which is weird given my mobile devices just use Google. Does that help with this ongoing mystery. Dan arndt (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dan arndt: Google you say. What browser is that? Google is just a search engine. And Google Chrome is a browser developed by Google. Masum Reza📞 07:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's bad. Will investigate tomorrow and post an update. My apologies to Dan (and everyone else affected) for the stress and issues. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My Bad Masumrezarock100, I'm not exactly computer literate - its Internet Explorer... (I think that's what you were after). Dan arndt (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. If you are having problems with IE, then you shouldn't use it. Most of the versions of IE are now outdated. Masum Reza📞 08:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Only problem with that is that it is the default browser for my work computer & the IT department take dim view of me changing things like that. Dan arndt (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    No rejecting on first review

    I'd like to propose that Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing_instructions#Rejecting_submissions be revised to discourage reviewers from using Reject for the first review of a submission. Immediate rejection is WP:BITEY and allowing a single reviewer to torpedo a draft does not offer sufficient checks and balances on reviewers. My proposed wording is below. ~Kvng (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    If a draft has previously been declined by a different reviewer, drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia may be rejected. Rejection is appropriate for a previously declined submission if the page would be uncontroversially deleted if it were an article (i.e., deletion would not be contested if WP:PRODDED, would be an overwhelming "delete" at AfD, or clearly meet a CSD article criterion). If a draft meets one of the general CSD criteria, an appropriate CSD tag should also be added.

    • I'm currently unsure about this on the notability front. I'll need to think about that. However there are clear articles that are against the purpose of wikipedia, and in many cases we'd just end up with them coming round again. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think coming around again once is not a problem. The problem that Reject was trying to solve was not a repeated submission but repeated resubmissions. ~Kvng (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rejecting on first review is appropriate for vanity autobiographies, things obviously made up, and obviously non-notable YouTube sensations based only on YouTube and similar links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: Can these cases be handled with CSD? ~Kvng (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WT:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A11_and_drafts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a "no" ~Kvng (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog elimination drive

    I propose that we start a new AFC backlog elimination drive. It's been 5 years since the last drive. Pending AFC submission is still over 4000. As far as I know, nothing has changed since the start of this year. We will give out barnstars to participants. To notifiy the reviewers, we can use the mass message tool. At least this will motivate AFC reviewers to review submissions. Even if we review all of the daily submissions, the number doesn't decrease at all. 4000 submissions are what killing us. I mean it's better than nothing right. There is no harm in it. Barnstars are pretty rare these days. :) Masum Reza📞 22:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This was discussed a few weeks ago. The discussion has been archived here and here. We need a proposal and probably also someone(s) to volunteer to run the drive. ~Kvng (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We have plenty of AFC reviewers both active and inactive alike. We can inform all of them at once of the drive using MMS tool.Masum Reza📞 08:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I could also look into running scoring and such. I was gonna gripe about not having the AFCBuddy source code, but then I realized Excirial actually did send it to me late last year. Calibrating scoring to discourage rushed reviews and encourage re-reviews is always a tough challenge, so I encourage a backlog drive proposal to have pretty specific scoring suggestions (as a base for discussion). Anyway, not a bad idea at all, provided that's addressed. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully we can get WP:AALERTS in on the action before the drive and have a "If you don't feel comfortable reviewing this yourself, add WikiProject Banners on the talk page to ask those WikiProjects to review the draft" kind of step. Tagging drafts could be done at a much much lower effort from AFC participants than reviewing individual articles, and would attract quality reviewers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is some recent discussion among NPP reviewers about a backlog drive over there. Perhaps some coordination is in order. ~Kvng (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to either co-ordinate and enable a combined score, or co-ordinate to make sure we don't go at the same time and hinder each other Nosebagbear (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nosebagbear: Good idea. I agree with the former. Masum Reza📞 10:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Messaging
    1. There is probably not going to be a backlog drive at NPR any time soon. Reviewers are coping (slowly).
    2. An up to date mass message mailing list of some 300 or so active AfC reviewers exists at Wikipedia:Wikiproject articles for creation/active users mailing list
    3. Only admins or authorised users can use the mass message system.
    4. History has shown (at NPP) that backlog drives often result in sloppy reviewing.

    Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kudpung: I didn't know about the last one. But I don't think we will encounter any problems because AFC participants are better than NPR reviewers. They have more experience. Masum Reza📞 13:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Masumrezarock100 Please remain objective or don't comment at all. Wikipedia is a serious project. Keep your aspersions to yourself., NPR is an official function, AfC is not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The middle of summer in the northern hemisphere is probably not the best time to run a backlog drive. Let's wait a few months to see if this is still required. – bradv🍁 14:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I am concerned of older drafts. There was that time when AFC submissions were instantly reviewed. But now, if someone submits a draft, there is a high chance that it will be reviewed after two month or so. Even now we have plenty of very old submissions. Delay causes newbies to be discouraged. They think, "who cares about AFC, it is gonna take a lot of time anyway"(Though I am not a mind reader). This affects NPP process indirectly. For example, a lot of AFD discussions are established via NPP process. New auto-confirmed editors creates articles in mainspace. And most of the time, those are deleted via speedy deletion or PROD. NP patrollers just tag articles for deletion of maintenance, and very few of them takes their time to improve those articles. From what I've learned, very few new page authors understands the meaning behind those tags. Via AFC process, we guide new users and teach them how to create good articles (I am not talking about GAs). Masum Reza📞 19:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also I think, G13 nominations are good example of this situation. Some page authors becomes lazy as they wait for their submissions to be reviewed. And once some AFC reviewer declines those drafts, most of them give up their hope that their article will be published. They think, I waited for so long and you just declined it.
    Note - Some of those above words are just my personal opinions. Though I think it might be the case that they think that way. Masum Reza📞 19:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you did, and I linked to those stalled discussions (here and here) for everyone's reference in the first reply above. ~Kvng (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    adding another wikipedia entry

    How do I make another wikipedia entry to submit for review? I cannot use my sandbox right now because I have another article for review. -E

    @Elizabethorr02: Please remember to WP:SIGN your posts, and in future direct general questions to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, the Wikipedia:Help desk, or the Wikipedia:Teahouse. The page you are reading is where experienced Articles for creation (AfC) reviewers discuss among themselves how to keep AfC running.
    You have many options. In this case, someone has moved your sandbox to Draft:Seeds of Time (film) so that you may start a new entry at User:Elizabethorr02/sandbox. In general, you may create as many sandboxes in your user space as you need, see Wikipedia:About the Sandbox. You may also draft pages directly in Draft: space, see Wikipedia:Drafts. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    AFCH and Draft:Anita Andreis

    I am ready to accept Draft:Anita Andreis but after filling in the accept information, I get no response from AFCH when I push the Accept & publish button. Anyone know what's going on here. I'm using Chrome on Windows 10. ~Kvng (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I hate to give the "standard IT help" reply, but have you tried on a different browser and/or clearing your cache? Primefac (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried on both FF and Chromebook, neither did anything. As an alternate question of things not working, is there anyone who has been able to accept a draft? This many users across two pages makes me think it's an error with AFCH itself. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be just a network error. Probably HTTP 201. Masum Reza📞 15:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm seeing this problem with Draft:Pan Kim. Tried clearing cache and purge too. I can mark the draft under review or add comments, but not do the Accept & Publish. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging Enterprisey. Masum Reza📞 16:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Enterprisey: It's still doing it with the 'cleaning' button. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, should be fixed for that case. Enterprisey (talk!) 10:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, thank you very much for all the bug reports! Enterprisey (talk!) 10:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Enterprisey: If you want more, there's always the Wikiproject banner mess! Likewise for duplicate categories. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Enterprisey. I have successfully accepted Draft:Anita Andreis. ~Kvng (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to sneak in here @Enterprisey:, but you mentioned other bug reports. Have you had any luck with the "declines turning to rejects" that caused the discussion above (you know, in your copious free time ;)? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I did look into it, but I was unable to reproduce the bug on Firefox or Chrome. (Will try on Edge, though, but I have less experience making stuff work there.) If anyone could give me a reliable way to make a decline happen in the place of a reject or vice versa that would be immensely helpful. I will of course keep trying to reproduce it myself. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Idea: AFCBot to cleanup stuff upon submission

    You know, there's a lot of small potatoes cleanup that can/should be done upon submission. So, to make the life of reviewers more simple, I propose that whenever an article is submitted

    • User:AFC bot (or whatever we call it) applies WP:AWB general fixes and moves the submission template to the top of the page. This would make the 'Cleanup submission' thing of the AFCH script irrelevant.
    • That same bot asks User:Citation bot to cleanup and tidy the citations.

    What's the feeling on this? Should I go make a WP:BOTREQ? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support This will make reviewing a lot more easier. Masum Reza📞 08:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm neutral at the moment (surprise surprise) but if we're going to have Citation bot do its tidying thing, it might make sense to either re-use the same code with this new bot or just have Citation bot do the submission cleaning as well. Saves an edit. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I'm concerned that potentially substantial and cryptic changes may be disorienting to new authors with minimal wikitext skill. I do improve primitive reference formatting just enough to make links clickable so it is easier to check them. I think adding {{citation}} templates may be going too far. This stuff can wait until the article is in mainspace and collaboration starts to happen and WP:GNOMEs do their thing. ~Kvng (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is that most GNOMEs don't edit AFC submissions. At least I haven't seen them. I think they wait for the articles to be moved to mainspace. Masum Reza📞 19:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see this as a problem. Gnomes would be wasting a lot of their time working on drafts and new authors may not appreciate the help. ~Kvng (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citation bot just tidies the existing information, adds the missing stuff, and converts bare links URLs when it can. E.g. [6], [7], etc... Not doing that just makes things harder to review and assess. If authors are missing, it's hard to tell if a source is independent or not. If you just have a bare url, instead of a titled link, that makes it even harder to asses what the source is about. If DOIs are missing, it makes it hard to find what journal they are citing. Note that I'm not talking about unleashed the bots during the drafting phase, only when the drafter tells us they're done with it and asks us to look at things. Having the submission templates on top (especially when a lot of them are at the bottom, with previous declinations on top, making it look like someone else already got to it), and the citations tidied will save a lot of time to reviewers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm all for adding any missing information to make the reference easier for reviewers to access. It is reformatting of existing information in drafts that I beleive is unnecessary and unwelcome. Also nothing wrong with reviewers improving ref formatting or anything else before accepting (or rejecting) a draft. I just don't think we need to or should apply automated changes to drafts while they're in the queue waiting for review. ~Kvng (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What then, is the problem with this type of edit: [8], [9] ? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    August 2019 at Women in Red

    August 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 129, 130, 131


    Check out what's happening in August at Women in Red...

    Virtual events:


    Editor feedback:


    Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

    Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

    --Rosiestep (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

    First time reviewer checking in

    Hi, I've just completed my first AfC review on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Julie_Rieger and wanted to get some feedback before proceeding with more (not sure if this is the best place to ask this?) Could a more experienced reviewer pls check my review and confirm everything has been done appropriately? TIA! MurielMary (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @MurielMary: - this is fine for that - I'll take a look now. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MurielMary: - so the primary call was fine, notability wasn't met. There was already a COI tag on the talk page, and one of the purposes of AfC is the editors with a COI to make articles, so further pointing out is unneeded. Obviously special focus on checking that any PaidCOI has declared properly is important.
    I would also say that the article was advertorial, particularly with the use of external links in the prose text (some with the arrows, others given are pure URLs in the author section). They'd have to be removed if the draft was passed. There's also some phrasing issues. Nothing non-fixable.
    I've no idea if you did or didn't do the following, so I'm just including it for completeness - apologies if unneeded! With someone like Rieger who is both businesswoman and an Author, as well as the general GNG check, make sure to check for alternate routes to notability like WP:AUTHOR.
    It can be worth giving a couple of lines of specific fixing advice to the creator, especially if you think the draft could actually make a decent article. For example, the editor might actually find it easier to find a couple of book reviews, along with letting them know about external links issues.
    That all said, looks good - no shying away from the tough drafts on your first review which is great - I was much more of a coward! Nosebagbear (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for taking the time to have a look and provide feedback, much appreciated and very useful! MurielMary (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Young submissions are not aging through the pending categories

    Joe's Null Bot used to purge every pending draft every day to update which subcategory of Category:AfC pending submissions by age it is in (0 days, 1 day, 2 days, ..., Very old). The bot's status page says it has been down since November 2018, but the bug that brought it down has long been fixed, a proposal to replace Joe's Null Bot was denied in April 2019 because "Joe's Null Bot should be working now", and something has been doing what Joe's Null Bot did, so perhaps the status page is just out of date.

    For the past two weeks or so, however, the bot either hasn't been running, or has run on only some drafts (the oldest, I think; Joe set a sanity limit on the number of pages purged per day, and the ever-increasing backlog may have blown past that). The easiest way to see the effect is to look at Category:AfC pending submissions by age/0 days ago, which contains many drafts that were submitted more than a day ago, such as Draft:Josie Moon and Draft:Los Angeles Contemporary Archive, both submitted on 16 July. Edits (including null ones) will jump a draft to the correct age.

    Who should we notify about this? I left a message a week ago at User talk:Joe Decker in case his bot is still the one assigned to this. But Joe edits infrequently now, and he hasn't replied yet. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AALERTS now supports WP:AFC

    See, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Article alerts#AFC.

    To make sure projects get notified, make sure to tag drafts with the relevant WikiProject banners. This will be particularly helpful if you come across a draft, but don't feel like the best person to review it.

    Cheers and thanks to Hellknowz for the update. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that this is new, and there may be some kink in the processing. If you notice something weird, please report it at WP:AALERTS/BUGS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation&oldid=908784290"